I'll stop there as without that word being correctly translated - the whole argument falls apart."
Let me quote him again:
"In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, Paul actually used a most unusual word, arsenokoitēs, meaning ‘male who has coitus with a male’ (Greek arsēn = male). This was not the normal term from the Greek culture. But the Levitical law explains where Paul obtained his binding New Testament prohibition. In English, Leviticus 18:22 reads:
(kai meta ou koimēthēsē gunaikos bdelugma gar estin)" Dr Johnathan Safarti: http://creation.com/response-to-gay-marriage-article-objections-cmi-shows-questioner-that-christian-faith-is-logical
The word used is a combination of the terms found in Leviticus 18:22 if you actually paid attention to what Safarti is saying. He highlights the two words from the Septuagint readings.
Conflict with scholars or not, you are stuck with the fact the NT itself condemns homosexual marriage. The point stands.
"You go on the say - >If you want to say no one knows what it means, fine, that still doesn't refute the fact that Jesus himself made it clear marriage is between a man and a woman and that homosexuality is out of the question.<
How about three scholars from Iowa?
A trio of Iowa-based religious scholars penned an op-ed, reminding readers that despite popular opinion, the Bible does not simply define marriage as between one man and one woman.
The argument against same-sex marriage is wholly unsustainable debate about marriage equality often centers, however discretely, on an appeal to the Bible. Unfortunately, such appeals often reflect a lack of biblical literacy on the part of those who use that complex collection of texts as an authority to enact modern social policy.
The Bible's definition of marriage can be confusing and contradictory. A primary example of this is the religious book's stance on polygamy, a practice that was embraced by prominent biblical figures Abraham and David. Various Bible passages mention not only traditional monogamy, but also self-induced castration and celibacy, as well as the practice of wedding rape victims to their rapists.
There are some people he may never be able to convince."
The scholars cited doesn't demonstrate the point made by Craig. Genesis 2 talks about the standard of what marriage was supposed to be. Let's read again:
"Genesis 2:21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame."
Biblical marriage is defined as in the context above. This was the original intention of marriage which Jesus shows in Matthew 19. Divorce was only allowed due to the hardness of human hearts:
"Matthew 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate. 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”"
Polygamy I am convinced was only allowed for the same reason, hardness of human hearts. Jesus is bringing people back to the Biblical standard of what marriage was supposed to be at the beginning of the earth. Craig D, Stop contriving excuses and trying to get around what Jesus said.
As for supposed "wedding rape victims to their rapists", Keith Thompson has recently addressed this in response to atheist apologist Amon Ra. Watch from 17:35-23:16, Keith Thompson, :The Absurdities of Youtube Atheist "AronRa": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flrncNZlOOw
"Many politicians have made a career out of using the Bible to justify opposition to hot-button topics like same sex marriage.
Those that use the Bible aren't necessarily interested in the truth or the complexity of the Bible. They are looking for one ancient sound bite to convince people what they already believe. Anyone who argues that "the Bible speaks plainly on one issue, especially something as complicated as marriage ... haven't take the time to read all of it.
Sorry you did all this, but your research seems to be lacking."
What a contrived excuse here made that I have seen, if you read the whole Bible, you will never conclude that homosexual behaviour or other sexual sins I listed in a previous paper is endorsed by the Bible itself: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/does-bible-condemn-homosexuality-2.html
Politicians do not use the Bible accurately, they proof text, they take a verse of context and contrive a meaning that is not even there explicitly or implicitly.
"Oh wait here you say at the very end >justify homosexuality< No one has to justify homosexuality - homosexuals exist on God's earth as part of God's plan or homosexuals would not be on God's earth. Just because you think its a sin, does not mean anyone has to 'justify' their existence or God's creations."
My argument was not justifying the existence of an individual, my argument was about justifying THE BEHAVIOUR of an individual. I said "bringing up what arsenokoites does and does not mean to try and justify homosexual behaviour, is moot.". If you are trying to defend sexual sin as the norm, that is justifying it.
Marriage is NOT complicated. Man and Woman, Not man and man or woman and woman, no sexual sin that has been listed are biblically acceptable. It couldn't be more simple and to over complicate it creates more contrivances than the ones that exist in bad video games like Sonic 06.
Case and point, homosexuality as a biblical behaviour, cannot be justified.